blandy

I’m sorry you think that, sorry because it’s dismissive of a different view to yours, sorry because it’s deemed bad, sorry because it’s “tagging” a view. I’ll be honest, the Israel Palestinian oppression and horror isn’t a big deal in my life it doesn’t affect my life. It’s awful, but the bus turns up, I go to work, or whatever. It’s a way away. I admit I don’t know jack. i probably am centrist, by this week’s definition. Previously I was left or socialist, or etc. Whatever, it’s all cool, all a label. Now I’m centrist both sides ism. Sorry for trying to work out how to make sense of it.

Absolutely. Complete agreement from me, there.

Thank you. I didn't and don't want to repeat the same points, so that's why the short reply. It's possible things can get so much worse of course, and if they got to such a state, then...the world is even more done for than it already is. Yeah, it's beyond my understanding too. It's "easy" for us to see the horrors that Israeli forces have committed, or to read about the impact on the lives of the people crammed into the West Bank and the Gaza strip. The land thefts, discrimination, collective punishment and all the rest. It's a little mnore difficult to get information and stories about the murders and punishments and inhumanity of some of the Palestinian groups on their own people. Easy to see when they bomb a bus or fire some rockets, and then get a barrage of bombs in return. It's an utter mess and being made worse at the moment by Trump, by the Israeli Gov't, in part emboldened by Trump. It's getting worse not better. I don't think the leaders" of either side currently want peace. It very sadly suits them to have conflict, much to the detriment of the two societies.

Some do, but most, maybe not. The situation with Labour MPs and members is different though. There is definitely genuine hurt and upset and disappointment as well as hypocritical and made up fuss. The cry wolf thing I mentioned a while ago - it's counter-productive and only aids the bells who deny there's any problem at all.

Yes.

Well exactly. The bastard Tory that he is, refusing to join the tories like that. ‘Kin Tory. but seriously, he’s a bit “independent” minded, sure, and 40 odd years as a labour MP suggests maybe labour has left him as much as he’s left them. Which is okay , things change, and he’s wrong on Brexit and has no divine right to be MP for wherever it is, but that applies to all of them. in a way it’s indicative of the flaws in the U.K. system of parliament and of parties. Lifelong campaigner against exploitation of the poor, ideas as to how to change that...sorry, you’re out Frank, not Corbyny enough...ok I quit..go on then, eff off you Tory.

Thank you. I’ve got a personal animus against Corbyn, Newman is a shoddy journalist Smeeth talked to the Telegraph...therefore.... thats it in a nutshell. Ignore because...they’re obviously y’know... perhaps, just maybe, I have “an animus” [ I just don’t rate him at all, I think he’s a wrong ‘un] against Corbyn because of examples such as this one, not what you’re implying which is that I’m having a go at him because I don’t rate him. I’d absolutely be, if not chuffed, relieved if this kind of thing wasn’t happening, if Labour was effectively opposing the tories, and Brexit instead of being rendered asunder by by internal disputes, plots, counter deselection threats, anti semitism, inept leadership and all the rest. It’s so inwards focused, instead of outwards. Sure they’ve always has headwinds because of the media loading for the tories, but his approach is not working, and worse than that, with the most inept, riven, terrible government ever they’re losing because of him. maybe I read it wrong, maybe decency, tolerance and egalitarianism will prevail through Corbyn’s saintly leadership... no, then again, perhaps not.

It depends. Most parties have a wide range of views and policy preferences amongst their membership. Other parts of Field's record are clear labour. He doesn't fit with the momentum type of Labour for sure. but he doesn't fit with a typical stereotype of any party, IMO. Even without the racism problems, I could see him leaving Labour, true.

My meaning is that while he doesn't tell them to do it, or hint they should do it, nevertheless they do it, and then he is rather reluctant to meaningfully discourage it, and he rather likes (IMO) the effect, or the results of the effect it creates. Turning something of a blind eye (as with all kinds of other areas) is his modus operandi - whether intentional, or sub-consciously, or because he cannot conceive that he's ever anything other than holier than thou righteous. Very much like your example from today, yes. It's rather helpful perhaps, so mild condemnation might tick the "nothing to do with me guv" box, but as with Boris Johnson and many other politicians, they are rather murkier than they like to project. They send signals, knowing exactly what will happen, but are distant enough to go with a pretence of innocence. It's not ALL down to Corbyn/AS/ Clown, but some of it is very much so. Like this kind of stuff So clear intimidation and abuse, and no condemnation, just "please be nice". And that was before he was leader (I think).

which bit of " his "band of furious tramps*" do that for him" does your post relate to, Peter? I know he doesn't personally engage in much more than mild anti-semitism and surely doesn't even believe he does. And why do you want to exclude more recent times, since he has been leader? Don't need to answer that one, we both know why. Because there are loads of examples of exactly what I said.

Probably about 12 years ago, I stripped out the kitchen, fitted new worktops and cupboards, sink, hob, cooker hood etc. and so I had to add a spur onto the ring main for the cooker hood fan. Because of the regs about getting a certificate, I had to pay a qualified lecky £125 quid to basically look at it, and sign a certificate. It didn't seem overly good vfm. (without wishing to big myself up, I am a competent person - member of the IET, chartered engineer etc.). So I guess there will be plenty of registered leckies getting £125+ for 5 minutes "work" (plus a 10 minute journey, to be fair).

Yes, absolutely wrong.... ...His people, his "band of furious tramps*" do that for him, whether online or in person. *(c) stewart lee

Yes, they do. That's what that Owl (a great grey owl) was doing. It's just the depth of the snow meant it's head also went into the snow http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/life/Great_Grey_Owl#p00ffmnh has a short video be owl. don't be mouse.

The fallback option for the border. - i.e. until something is agreed it stays as it is (or is not, more accurately) si N.I effectively stays in the SM for the time being and the UK fudges some crud between N.I and the mainland. I agree the NI border issue is ultimately insoluble with the red lines - I was saying so before the vote, in terms of you can't have both "control of your borders and immigration" and "no border with the South" (and therefore the rest of the EU) ". But faced with the impossibility of their/her stupidity, the tories/May will have to give way on their current hard red line.

There's going to be a vote in parliament on whatever "deal" and it will happen before the EU vote on the same "deal". They are having something to vote on. In the event that parliament votes "no" to whatever Theresa May puts in front of it, then because the tories have made such an utter arse of the whole process it's not clear what happens next. One possibility is we just crash out, another is we go back to the EU, say "oops, it appears we've shit our own bed, can we, er have some time to sort ourselves out and get back to you?". May would be bound to resign, the EU would be suicidal not to allow an extension - it costs them nothing and gains them a fair bit (not least money). Then we're back to the top 3 options I gave.

Yes, that's right. Route A and route B.

His theory, or "plan" as he calls it, sounds like a load of old....to me. There are surely 4 ultimate possibilities from the UK perspective No Brexit - goes directly against referendum result, therefore all sorts of problems. Soft Brexit - not much harm done, but leaves UK worse off and a powerless rule taker, so the hard right lot will melt down and maybe block it. Hard Brexit - very harmful, the more central MPs will melt down and maybe block it. No Deal - suicidally stupid and harmful - will be blocked by vast numbers of MPs There are surely 2 possibilities from the EU perspective A deal of some sort - a little bit of harm, but not so much No deal - not getting the £39 billion, significant harm. A "No deal" outcome, IMO, is not going to happen. There would just be a time extension and more talking and even the possibility of a UK election and the whole thing getting called off afterwards, depending how things go with MPs and leaders n'that. It would please the EU and more than half the UK, as well. I think we're in with a 50 - 50 chance of either a time extension, or a watering down of red lines and ultimately a soft Brexit. Setting up scenarios where a, b, or c can be blamed is not plausible, because the tories and to a lesser extent Labour will be blamed and pay the price no matter what is claimed or said

Thanks. That's what I was trying to get across (only without the big words or the w***ky ones - "utilitarian calculus of violent struggle" - I have no idea what that's supposed to mean! - I take it to indicate the writer is a plum, which probably isn't what he/she intended).

Now that tube Davis has gone the tone has changed from exasperation to practicalism, influenced no doubt by the short timescales and the acceptance on both sides that no deal is massively harmful. The tone may change back if all these stupid Theresa May red lines are insisted on, mind.

In my short post, I didn’t help my self with the use of “universally”, so I’ll try again. It’s often said, in regard to terrorist attacks etc. that we need to tighten our laws, arrest more suspects, interrogate them a little more “firmly”, worry less about human rights. We condemn the terrorist acts as outrages - blowing up kids in Manchester, buses and trains in London...So we rightly say the killing is wrong and torture of suspects is wrong. I don’t see how anyone could then excuse it or say it isn’t wrong to kill or torture people if (in the example given) the ANC does it “to battle apartheid”. Torturing terror suspects, summary executions, blowing up pubs, cars, hotels..it’s all wrong in this terror/war on terror situation. I didn’t mean it to include people in their homes faced with armed burglars and defending themselves or families from....etc. Or military intervention to stop the mass killings in Bosnia, or Rwanda or Sierra Leone, or as you mentioned it WWII.

Deep, brother, deep. pringle sweater.

What’s that thing we say? If we stoop to the evil they do, we’ve lost? If we adopt the same standards as the terrorists... if killing and torture is wrong ( sorry, I used that word again), then it’s universally wrong. And it is wrong. Does the end justify the means? When did our standards slip like that?

Looking at that picture, crazy in a small way, only. And why is he wearing Trump’s tie?

Yes that seems fair comment. My take is that the writer seems to come from a standpoint of Conservatism, rather than neutrality. The parts about Corbyn do rather do as you say. Yet there’s something there in terms of how quite a number of his more credulous fan base tend to perhaps over state his difference from everyone else, and this photo is often used as a contrast and compare thing for that purpose. Anyway I learnt a bit more background I didn’t know from the article.

Sure. Where do you draw the line between, say "Sabotage" and "terrorism" - because my hazy recollection of the radio interview was that they were accused of Sabotage (or similar, rather than actual (what I'd call) terror attacks. I think the guy said they didn't do the one they were accused of, but he intimated they "weren't exactly angels" with a sort of knowing laugh.